Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

jacobbrazeal.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 342 posts

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#131

Post by RivieraKid »

blub wrote: post #115

I would recommend chess for kids/teens, because it's an interesting way to teach certain self-control and tactical/strategy concepts which can be applied in real life. As an adult, chess is a time sink with very little upside if you want to be at least decent, especially at longer time controls. I've been playing chess for more than a couple of decades, but recently decided to stop partly because of the pandemic, but…

This is my take as well. I had a few periods when I was spending time trying to get good at chess, but after the initial enthusiasm evaporated, I realized that it's just a waste of time and energy. You only have a limited amount of peak mental performance per day, why use it for something that has questionable benefits over playing video games or watching Netflix? It's better to use my mental resource to learn and make stuff that has long-term value.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#133

Post by EL_Loco »

blub wrote: post #115

I would recommend chess for kids/teens, because it's an interesting way to teach certain self-control and tactical/strategy concepts which can be applied in real life. As an adult, chess is a time sink with very little upside if you want to be at least decent, especially at longer time controls. I've been playing chess for more than a couple of decades, but recently decided to stop partly because of the pandemic, but…

Chess is good for kids, but I fortunately fell out of the "chess makes kids smarter" trap a few years before I had my own kids. Besides teaching self-control, focus, how to think more strategically, etc, getting very good at chess will mean that you are just that: very good at chess. So I taught my kids and they play when they want, but they seem to get the same benefits from other boardgames of varying complexity, and many times that's what they enjoy more.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#134

Post by lizardmancan »

fabian2k wrote: post #89
mrslave wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. I do play against humans (I hope) but less than half the time. I too have noticed the blunders. What is the first level where you estimate it plays consistently?

I never played it above level 3, and I would assume that any handicap will result in weird plays. And without handicap it is too strong for any human.

i just play at the highest level and lose pretty much all of the time. it does greatly improve my analysis but you grow a fear of attacking which makes a boring player. beating the computer is done by sticking to positions you know well and winning before material leaves the board. every pawn removed makes the computer 100 times stronger. again, very boring

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#135

Post by screwt »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #132

For non chess player what does a rating of 650 mean?

ELO ratings start at 600 for absolute beginner. With a good amount of effort, a dedicated amateur can reach ~1500 without too much difficulty, and at that level you'll beat any casual player. 2000 is international standard. Best human player is around 2700. Note - chess.com does not use ELO ratings - they have their own rating system which is more complex (includes an uncertainty factor based on how recently you have played), but is supposed to be roughly equivalent. The author of the article is playing blitz chess (3 minutes a game) rather than standard chess, so the ratings are largely irrelevant to standard levels.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#136

Post by emerongi »

Trufa wrote: post #93
prune2000 wrote: post #10

You should use lichess.org instead. You would have unlimited tactics per day which come from real games played on the website, endless number of studies made by other players on opening theories, free analysis of your games, and all these statistics about your progress and more! Like "do I win more often or not when Queens are traded?". Good luck!

I’m a huge fan of lichess for playing and analysis but I think for tactics, it’s the one place it’s lacking, it’s always too easy for me for some reason and I go to chesstempo instead. Does anyone else experience this? By the way, when I say easy it’s for me that I’m an average player.

What is your puzzle rating? As a novice player (1300 rating), the puzzles are plenty hard for me personally.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#137

Post by matwood »

hannofcart wrote: post #124
blub wrote: post #115

I would recommend chess for kids/teens, because it's an interesting way to teach certain self-control and tactical/strategy concepts which can be applied in real life. As an adult, chess is a time sink with very little upside if you want to be at least decent, especially at longer time controls. I've been playing chess for more than a couple of decades, but recently decided to stop partly because of the pandemic, but…

I advocate the same (teaching kids) Poker for the same reasons you mentioned (certain self-control and tactical/strategy concepts) but this is often greeted with controversy anytime I voice it. Learning to weigh the odds, exercising patience, taking calculated risks in the face of incomplete information, making allowance for the vagaries/emotions of your opponent all seem like great skills that would help one in life…

Poker is great. The other big thing it teaches is that luck is real. A hand can be played perfectly, and the player can still lose. Long term, the better player will win, but any player can get sucked out on any given hand. Losing in this way is tough, but a great lesson.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#138

Post by sandworm101 »

Online chess is currently facing a wave of cheating. Kids, stuck at home by covid, are playing chess at grandmaster levels. They are using software to suggest moves. Detecting it has become an interesting big data/machine learning problem. So i wouldn't get to obsessed with soecific rank-based rating schemes.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-e...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/oct/16/chesss-cheatin...

>> In one chess tournament, five of the top six were disqualified for cheating. In another, the doting parents of 10-year-old competitors furiously rejected evidence that their darlings were playing at the level of the world No 1. And in a third, an Armenian grandmaster booted out for suspicious play accused his opponent of “doing pipi in his Pampers”.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#139

Post by dreamer7 »

xuki wrote: post #111
_the_inflator wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey there fellow AoE II player! Cool, to hear from some decent player. What time did you play? Around 2002? Since I was a 2k player at the time, let me assure you, that the top dudes at the time (Koven, Sheriff for example) were already so called pro gamers who got payed/sponsored and they were exceptionally good. The true story is, that many folks above 2k+ did what was called "points trading" back then. Koven once…

As someone who could never break 1750 on Zone, hat off to both of you. Even though I no longer play, I did follow the scene closely for a while until a few years ago. To my surprise DauT is still a top player, although one of his teammate is clearly the indisputable No. 1 by a distance compare to anyone else.

To me, DauT is the Mikhail Tal of AOE while Viper is Bobby Fischer.

I've watched endless videos of DauT and Viper playing AoE. ZeroEmpires has done a lot to popularize AoE streaming. Here's his YouTube channel if anyone is interested - https://www.youtube.com/user/ZeroEmpires

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#140

Post by westwing »

Here's a theory on why nerds get bullied:

Bullies instinctively realize that there's an unusually smart person in their tribe who is wasting their gift on fruitless endeavors, thus reducing the survival chances of the tribe.

Of course, our modern society can afford to have smart people play chess. However, there is no evidence that chess skill transfers to other areas. Therefore, until proven otherwise, developing chess skill should be perceived as frivolous, just like developing skill in any other less prestigious game.

Post reply on HN